What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration denied.
Defendant sought reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued by the WCJ on August 27, 2024; the WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration recommending denial; the WCAB panel denied the petition on November 25, 2024.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations, denying the petition.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on August 27, 2024, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained injury to the lumbar spine on December 29, 2019, and that applicant was employed by defendant at the time of injury.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on September 27, 2024, and the decision was issued on November 25, 2024, within the 60-day period required by Labor Code section 5909.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This established the timeliness of the petition for reconsideration, leading to its denial on the merits.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to Events, the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on September 27, 2024, and 60 days from the date of transmission is Tuesday, November 26, 2024. This decision is issued by or on November 26, 2024, so that we have timely acted on the Petition as required by section 5909(a).
The WCJ's credibility determinations were given great weight by the Appeals Board because the WCJ observed the demeanor of the witnesses and there was no substantial evidence to reject those determinations.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the denial of the petition for reconsideration on the merits.
From the decision · page 3II. As to the merits of the petition, based upon our review of the record and for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, we concur with the WCJ's findings on credibility.2 We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 504-505].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.) Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration must be acted upon within 60 days of transmission to the Appeals Board.
The Appeals Board acted within the 60-day period, making the petition timely.
From the decision · page 2Former Labor Code section 59091 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ's credibility determinations
From the decision · page 3II. As to the merits of the petition, based upon our review of the record and for the reasons stated in the Opinion on Decision and the Report, we concur with the WCJ's findings on credibility.2 We have given the WCJ's credibility determinations great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318-319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 504-505].) Furthermore, we conclude there is no evidence of considerable substantiality that would warrant rejecting the WCJ's credibility determinations. (Id.) Accordingly, we deny reconsideration.
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.